Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

House Approves Hate-Crimes Measure as Part of Defense Funding

By Ben Pershing
Legislation to punish hate crimes became a flashpoint on Capitol Hill on Thursday, as a measure expanding the definition of such crimes was attached to the bill outlining the Defense Department budget and approved by the House over the strong objections of Republicans.

House and Senate negotiators agreed earlier this week to attach the hate-crimes provision to the conference report for the $680 billion Defense Department authorization bill. The combined bill passed the House on Thursday, 281 to 146, with 131 Republicans and 15 Democrats in opposition. The measure must pass the Senate, in a vote that could come as early as next week, before it can head to President Obama's desk for his signature.

Congressional Republicans complained that appending the hate crimes provision to a bill laying out the Pentagon's budget for the coming year was an abuse of the legislative process and made U.S. troops "political pawns" in an unrelated social debate.

The provision would broaden the current definition of federal hate crimes to include attacks based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It would also create a new federal crime to cover attacks against U.S. military personnel because of their service.

"This is radical social policy that ... is being put on the defense authorization bill, on the backs of our soldiers, because they probably can't pass it on its own," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

The House passed the hate-crimes measure as a stand-alone bill in April, with 18 Republicans joining 231 Democrats in support. But it stalled in the Senate. At the strong urging of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and fellow supporters from the House, the measure was attached to the Defense legislation -- considered a must-pass bill.

Pelosi said Thursday that this week's timing of the hate-crimes vote was appropriate.

"Monday is the 11th anniversary of the murder of Matthew Shepard, and we want in the same week of that tragic event to call the public's attention once again to people acting upon their hatred in a violent way," Pelosi said, referring to the infamous 1998 murder of a gay University of Wyoming student.

Civil-rights groups welcomed Thursday's House action.

"We're very pleased by this and look forward to it landing on the president's desk," said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

By Ben Pershing  |  October 8, 2009; 3:45 PM ET
Categories:  House , Purse Strings  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Pelosi Sending Three Versions of Health Bill to CBO
Next: House Ethics Committee Expands Rangel Investigation

Comments

Amazing. The economy is tanking. The military is being ignored by liberals from Odumbo to the Congressional slugs. And the House A holes are continuing to pander to perverts with the hate crimes B.S.
We have plenty of laws to deal with criminal behavior.
Too bad there aren't any for stupid liberal democrats who abuse the legislative process.

Posted by: LarryG62 | October 8, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Amazing. The economy is tanking. The military is being ignored by liberals from Odumbo to the Congressional slugs. And the House A holes are continuing to pander to perverts with the hate crimes B.S.
We have plenty of laws to deal with criminal behavior.
Too bad there aren't any for stupid liberal democrats who abuse the legislative process.

Posted by: LarryG62
=============================
YES you are right..
There is a reason for that..
ALL the REPUBLICAN are hipocritcal perverts and closet racists..Craig, Foley, South Carolina guys, Cunningham, Kyl, Wilson, Johnson (VA)

Posted by: Issa1 | October 8, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

I fail to understand why this provision was so controversial. Yes, GOP, I get it. You aren't gay-friendly. So what? What is so horrible about this?

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | October 8, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Gays and lesbians pay the same taxes as their fellow straight Americans, but we are the subject of irrational hatred, largely fomented by the Republican party. I am so sick and tired of being a second class citizen in my own country.

Posted by: homer4 | October 8, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Finally. Praise God for President Obama and the House Democrats. I can't believe that any office holder would oppose protecting Americans from violent crime. It's ridiculous that conservative Boehner actually called this 'radical social policy'.

Posted by: lfivepoints69yahoocom | October 8, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

What's new, democrats and republicans play this game of attaching bills to must pass legislation, to avoid it coming to the floor for debate.

Posted by: moebius22 | October 8, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

I have no problem with the bill other than it was attached to a defense spending measure.

why is it so much to ask that this practice be banned by our legislature. its ridiculous, makes absolutely 0 sense, and is a poor methodology for effective democratic representation.

Posted by: ballgame | October 8, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Wake up! It's already a crime to assault or kill gay people -- or any other kind of people!

This hate-crime provision is really designed to make certain groups "more equal" than others. AG Eric Holder admitted in Congressional testimony that if a straight, white male were assaulted for being a straight, white male, -- or if a Christian fundamentalist were assaulted for being a Christian fundamentalist -- this law would NOT consider it a hate crime!

Further proof that our political masters want to get rid of the white middle class.

Posted by: pmendez | October 8, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Dems seeking special "politically correct" laws for special rights for favored minorities.

ALL victims of violent crime are victims of HATE. If the criminal LOVES you she will probably not ATTACK you.

Liberalism run amok.

The real intent is to criminally prosecute anyone opposed to homosexuality, this is the beginning of thought crimes.

Posted by: JaxMax | October 8, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Don't all crimes have a certain element of hate associated with it. I have noticed that the crimes perpetrated by Wall Street, against or Republic and communities, the looting and scams of the last two or three decade, are almost entirely perpetrated by the Jewish business people. Are these acts of deliberate criminality and treason hate crimes? Does that reality make it a hate crime against our republic, because most of the victims and our Republic are populated by gentiles? What I wrote, does that make me a racist, even though it's an uncomfortable truth that I am very uncomfortable even mentioning... that most folks are very much aware of and are talking about with great anger in private everywhere I hear conversations about Wall Street malfeasance and the bailouts. There is too much hate these days and too much crime and I hope that I am not adding to it by expressing what I am witnessing.

Posted by: 123Njord | October 8, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

THE HATE CRIMES SLIPPERY SLOPE

Consider BATTERY which is actual physical contact and ASSAULT which is threatened conduct without physical contact.

Now with Dems we will have the Hate crime BATTERY offense, the Hate Crime assault offense will soon follow.

Reading the Bible out loud will engender a Hate Crime prosecution.

Posted by: JaxMax | October 8, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

If the criminal who KILLS you (because you are unarmed due to liberal idiocy)

does NOT do so because of your sexual orientation..................


are you less DEAD???

Posted by: JaxMax | October 8, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Why would the Democrats attach this provision to a *DOD* authorization? That only highlights the fact that they haven't done anything about Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Posted by: tomtildrum | October 8, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

pmendez and JaxMax - don't you get it? A crime comitted against an individual becuase they belong to a certain perceived group is a much different crime than targeting someone because the perpetrator has a specific problem with them. The hate crimes laws already include religion - so noththing there changes. Your points are really stupid and unless you are planning on beating a gay person or someone with a disability, it really shouldn't matter to you.

Posted by: MitchInDallas | October 8, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I find it odd that homosexuals would support this because it discriminates them. If homosexuals wanted equality, they would be against such measures.

Posted by: ItsMeFromHere | October 8, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

The Hate Crimes will NOT be limited to physical attacks.

These are thought crimes.

The physical attacks are already illegal, and always have been.

Posted by: JaxMax | October 8, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Making the military's budget contengient on passing thought crimes on behalf of their constiutants is today's Democrat party's M.O..

Posted by: luncheaterguy | October 8, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

luncheaterguy - I don't like the practice of tying unassociated legislation together either - but to suggest that its only the Dems who do it is flat wrong. Every congress has operated this way - no matter which party is in power.

Posted by: MitchInDallas | October 8, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Poor, poor rightwingnuts. Most of them are self-loathing closet homos anyway.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 8, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand how being against the attachment of a provision that allows for the Federal government to override states laws suddenly makes you a homophobe or racist. I think many people genuinely feel that there are right and wrong ways to debate legislation, and that such matters should be left to the states. The whole practice of attaching provisions to bills should be abolished, becuase it circumvents the legislative process.

Posted by: moebius22 | October 8, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Does this apply to all races? Or is this limited to legal attacks on whites only?

Jeremia Wright, obama pastor hate white, Latinos and other non blacks. I want to send the feds to stop his hate and put him in jail. My black wife does not like him either.

Posted by: billisnice | October 8, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

MitchInDallas says, "A crime comitted against an individual becuase they belong to a certain perceived group is a much different crime than targeting someone because the perpetrator has a specific problem with them."

Why is it not a hate crime if blacks or gays murder a straight white man because they have a "specific problem" with straight, white men?

Is it a hate crime if I murder my boss because a have a "specific problem" with him?

"Hate-crime" legislation is simply about creating protected groups that the law says are BETTER than the rest of us.

JaxMax is right. Once these protected classes have been established in law, it will soon be illegal to say mean things about them, like it already is in Europe.

Posted by: pmendez | October 8, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Okay for all you Republicans who are against this bill.

I guy with a big old JESUS SAVES on his car is driving down the street and a Muslim yells out DIE CHRIST LOVER--- JIHAD IS GREAT. And he blows you up.

This is not a HATE crime?

You would all call him a terrorist I assume... and want to fry him.

A gay guy and his male friend are walking down the street and a guy yells DIE F*GGOT DIE _ and shoots them.
SAME THING - The Gay Guys were killed simply because they were gay - for no other reason. They would not be dead except for their being out in public.

See the difference - I doubt it because you can't imagine this being a problem in your little small minds.

Posted by: kare1 | October 8, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

"Radical social policy" - wow, what hyperbole.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | October 8, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Why are some groups singled out for "sacred cow" status?? It is beyond bizzare that the ideal of equality is scoffed at with these "affirmative action' type laws.

Liberals are simply saying that their favorite groups are better than everyone else and should have special treatment.

Mind numbing hypocrisy seems to be the hallmark of liberal Democrat politics.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 8, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

If you don't get the concept of minority groups and the government's role in protecting minorities from mob rule and abuse, then what's the point in contributing to the conversation.

Posted by: MitchInDallas | October 8, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

pmendez - when is the last time you were in Europe. I've been recently, and I don't recall negative speech being illegal.

Posted by: MitchInDallas | October 8, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

This is a very welcome development.

Posted by: suhail_shafi | October 8, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Chill out Republicans – President Obama is still on your side. He and AG Holder have no intention of enforcing these or any other of the other hate crimes statutes.

Most of these hate-crimes are perpetrated by law enforcement personnel and you know the President isn’t ever going in that mine field again.

Posted by: question-guy | October 8, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

To Kare1:

The point is, if a Muslim kills a Christian, that is NOT considered a hate crime by this legislation!!! The Muslim would get no extra penalty, no worry about double-jeopardy.

Read the bill.

Posted by: pmendez | October 8, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I find it rather appropriate that LGBT hate crimes legislation should be attached to a Defense Department appropriation bill. It is the Defense Department that is the ONLY federal agency that continues to blatantly discriminate against LGBT people by not allowing them to serve openly. Kudos to Nancy Pelosi and all those on both sides of the aisle who voted to support this bill. Undoubtly, my own Republican representative, Bob Goodlatte, voted against. Shame on him.

Posted by: hgheiss1 | October 8, 2009 5:20 PM | Report abuse

MitchInDallas:

I was in France last spring.

If you are unaware of the speech laws in many European countries against "inciting hatred" against minority groups, including England & France, educate yourself before continuing this debate.

Posted by: pmendez | October 8, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

pmendez - are you really that stupid? The current hate crimes law already has religion as a covered class for hate crimes. This new bill just extends the protected classes. Obviously you didn't have a problem with the law when it protected religion... its just the fags you don't like.

Posted by: MitchInDallas | October 8, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

pmendez - inciting hate is much different than making a negative comment about someone. Our own laws also deal with incitement, as in inciting a riot is not legal. Maybe you should educate yourself a little also.

Posted by: MitchInDallas | October 8, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse


Covering Disabilities is a must-do.

Look at it this way: Anyone beating someone in a wheelchair deserves additional penalties.

Anyone answering contrary to this is a sociopath and needs to be tracked down and given a special whupping.

Ooops, if the law was passed, they'd be a protected person under the law!

My bad.

Posted by: thardman | October 8, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

The REAL Danger of the Hate Crimes bills is that the legal system is taking the quantum leap from punishing ACTIONS

to punishing THOUGHTS.

A homosexual who is wrongfully murdered is just as dead whether his killer hated homsoexuals or was his legally married husband.

And Nutcase Napoliatano has already described Christians and those who believe in Bible Prophecy as warning signs of potential terrorists.

This is a THOUGHT CRIME Bill.

Posted by: JaxMax | October 8, 2009 5:28 PM | Report abuse

What's new, democrats and republicans play this game of attaching bills to must pass legislation, to avoid it coming to the floor for debate.

Posted by: moebius22 | October 8, 2009 4:37 PM

============

Debate? They don't debate anything. The only give speeches on the floor. Haven't you noticed the chairs are virtually empty during "debate"?

The reason they do this is an appropriations bill passes with a simple majority. No 60 vote rule in the Senate. The purpose is to avoid a filibuster in the Senate.

Posted by: James10 | October 8, 2009 5:28 PM | Report abuse

If the goofy, liberal Democrats keep expanding the scope of their pet, hate crimes laws, eventually everyone will be included. Then we'll be back where we started.

Protecting everybody equally.

Wouldn't that be nice.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 8, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

MitchInDallas: European laws are not about inciting riots. They're about "inciting hate" which often boils down to saying anything negative about minority groups.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/world/americas/11iht-hate.4.13645369.html

There's a thing called "Google." Learn to use it.

Posted by: pmendez | October 8, 2009 5:33 PM | Report abuse

I AM FED UP WITH THESE GAME PLAYING, SELF-SERVING A--HOLES!

Ah, yes. It's our wiley "representatives" (I use the word loosely)-- still shrewdly pitting demographic, social, and cultural segments of our population against one another. That way we're easier to control.

It's a strength in numbers thing. And believe me, Capitol Hill has just about sapped the American people of all their strength.

Posted by: JAH3 | October 8, 2009 5:33 PM | Report abuse

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT HATE CRIMES

A Pastor reads Romans 1:26 on TV:

" 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.

Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion"

Then some deranged nutcase kills a homosexual.

The prosecutor tells the murderer he can get a reduced sentence if he implicates the Pastor on tv.

The murderer, who never watched the Pastor agrees.

Then the Prosecutor charges the Pastor with Conspiracy to Commit Hate Crimes.

Coming soon to a deranged Obama Administation near you.

Posted by: JaxMax | October 8, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

The more I look, the more I am convinced that the Republican Party is one big hate crime in motion.

Posted by: MagicDog1 | October 8, 2009 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Was this passed so we can't hate terrorists? Especially those that want to kill us? How about if the terrorists are related to Barack Hussein Obama?

Posted by: cschotta1 | October 8, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Aren't these Republicans incredible? O.K. Republicans. Let's go on a gay bashing spree, knock a few gay heads unconscious, kill a few. There, don't you feel better now? All that hatred can just ooze out of you. I bet you're all Christians, too.

Posted by: flamingliberal | October 8, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

MitchInDallas:

You are correct that the hate crime bill contains "religion" as a covered class. I will concede that.

However, in AG Eric Holder's testimony before Congress, he repeatedly spoke of an "historic basis" for making certain groups protected classes. Therefore, I expect that in reality the Justice Department will turn a blind eye to hate crimes committed against Christian fundamentalists just like it currently turns a blind eye to hate crimes committed by minorities against whites, and by gays against straights.

Posted by: pmendez | October 8, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

It's unfortunate that this measure was attached to a Defense spending bill. I wish the Congress could be prevented from gluing riders to unrelated legislation. At first I thought this had something to do with bias in the military, and this is part of the unfortunate confusion. (I suspect there is less bias in the military than in business. But then there is less bias in government employment than in business as well.)

It's not clear what this law is, how it will be applied. I see that some have referenced "political correctness," but PC isn't new, and there are ample lessons in history regarding its application, such as the French Revolution's Jacobin period. (Fr. rev. #1)

I think it will be interesting to see how this bias crime statute is applied to attacks on women. The U.S. Sup. Ct. previously ruled the Violence Against Women Act unconstitutional. Women are the smaller of the species, the smaller monkey. They are more easily picked off, and are more attractive targets to a perpetrator. They are more attractive targets to other women as well. Female on female harassment exceeds that of male-female harassment. Does this include threatening phone calls? Sexual harassment? Stalking? Assault?

Men get away with this abuse because so many women can't control their own behavior, their own aggression against other females.

I would still like to point out that the FBI's website does have information about civil rights law and the penalties that one can sustain in violating these laws. None of these laws excludes social or biological facts regarding a perpetrator, and there are no protected categories for aggressors. That means minorities, women, religious groups, sexual orientation, etc., are not cover for unlawful behavior, and the same penalties apply.

Civil rights are for people, not special people, people you like or don't like. Everyone's got them, it's just a question of whether our government will enforce them for us all.

Posted by: redd1 | October 8, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

What's new, democrats and republicans play this game of attaching bills to must pass legislation, to avoid it coming to the floor for debate.

Posted by: moebius22 | October 8, 2009 4:37 PM

============

Debate? They don't debate anything. The only give speeches on the floor. Haven't you noticed the chairs are virtually empty during "debate"?

The reason they do this is an appropriations bill passes with a simple majority. No 60 vote rule in the Senate. The purpose is to avoid a filibuster in the Senate.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It depends on the issue at hand.

Posted by: moebius22 | October 8, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

FlamingLiberal:

It is ALREADY a crime to knock gays unconscious or kill them. This law will make it a crime to hate them.

You hate racists, and child molesters, don't you?

You probably hate Republicans and Christian fundamentalists, too.

So the government can tell us who we must love and who we must hate?

PS: I'm neither a Republican nor a Christian fundamentalist. But I refuse to let people tell me what to think, and I refuse to let the government punish me for how I think.

Posted by: pmendez | October 8, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

they gonna start giving a "gay identification card" or they gonna call a proctologist to the morgue ? :)

Posted by: adadada | October 8, 2009 5:49 PM | Report abuse

The real hate crime that hurts most minorities in America is the institutionalized racism by the white majority that socioeconomically limits or marginalizes them, still.

Posted by: TalkingHead1 | October 8, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Intolerant conservatives don't have a single credible reason against the provision in a bill for LGBT rights. The very important provision in the bill which would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of hate crimes is necessary and President Obama will sign the bill which contains that provision. Violence against LGBT people on the basis of sexual orientation is unjustified. Again, intolerant conservatives don't have a single credible reason against the bill's provision, which proves they keep spewing nonsense.

Posted by: LibertyForAll | October 8, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

"To Kare1:

The point is, if a Muslim kills a Christian, that is NOT considered a hate crime by this legislation!!! The Muslim would get no extra penalty, no worry about double-jeopardy.

Read the bill.

Posted by: pmendez | October 8, 2009 5:19 PM"
==========================

That's because we already have existing Federal hate crime laws regarding religion. If that Muslim killed that Christian BECAUSE of religion (motive / intent is important here), then it should be a hate crime law under 18 U.S.C. § 245 and perhaps more, depending on that individual State.

Same with if that Christian killed the Muslim because of their religion. Intent is important here. It doesn't mean that if John Doe happens to kill someone who his gay, that they will be hit with a hate crime penalty unless they can prove that their sexual orientation was the reason why John killed them.

Posted by: ClandestineBlaze | October 8, 2009 5:54 PM | Report abuse

With each day that passes it becomes more evident that the DEMS haven't a clue what their doing. Their only function seems to be pandering to gather votes. Murder is obviously a hate crime. No other laws need to be tied to it or added to the charges. This is a waste of time and money. The LIBS are their own worst enemy.

Posted by: askgees | October 8, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Wimpy way of sidestepping promises to allow gays to serve openly in the military by overturning the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. That's what SHOULD have been included in this bill.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | October 8, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Intolerant conservatives don't have a single credible reason against the provision in a bill for LGBT rights. The very important provision in the bill which would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of hate crimes is necessary and President Obama will sign the bill which contains that provision. Violence against LGBT people on the basis of sexual orientation is unjustified. Again, intolerant conservatives don't have a single credible reason against the bill's provision, which proves they keep spewing nonsense.

Posted by: LibertyForAll | October 8, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

And since neither are a "protected class" it means nothing. Are you really this ignorant????

Posted by: askgees | October 8, 2009 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Once again Speaker Pelosi shows her stupidity. Murder is already a crime. There should not be an additional penalty because the victim was a homosexual. Hate crime bills would do nothing except penalize anyone who disagrees with the government's official way of thinking.

Posted by: randy28146 | October 8, 2009 6:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm a twelve toed, cross-eyed, albino dwarf. Can Nancy Pelosi and her band of San Fransisco Democrats craft a special law for the likes of me??

The dwarfs with ten toes pick on me all the time and make me feel real bad about myself.

I am a vicimized minority and need special treatment just to get along.

How about a across-eyed, albino dwarf with extra toes "hate crime" bill? It makes just as much sense as any of the other "hate crime" bills out there.

It's only fair!!

Posted by: battleground51 | October 8, 2009 6:08 PM | Report abuse

If one of these homo bastards tries to rape me and I defend myself and kick the bejesus out of him, does that make me a "hate criminal" when he reports me to Obama? Or must I sit back, close my eyes, and think of the good old USA, and take it like a good American? Read Mailer's "Prisoner of Sex". It had all the answers over 30 years ago. Are your kids safer now? Christians and Muslims unite against the threat!

Posted by: gimlitdwarf | October 8, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

This is legislation that is right up the liberals' alley. The culture has swallowed the fiction that liberal Democrats are compassionate and loving of diversity and tolerance etc.and that they are utterly incapable of hating anyone (except Republicans). It is dangerous to attempt to inquire into the hate that a rapist or a murderer carried when he or she committed a crime. And has anyone noticed that the perpetrators of "hate" crimes are invariably white and that their victims are what liberals call "people of color?" We know that blacks kill white people from time to time but liberals will never admit that those blacks are motivated by hate. Were Mohammed Atta and his gand motivated by hate? They killed thousand of people- whether they hated any of their victims is completely irrelevant.

Posted by: mhr614 | October 8, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

I don't get all the hub-bub. I mean the repubs were all for attaching the law allowing guns in national parks to the credit card legislation.

Posted by: cg24820001 | October 8, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

fr JaxMax:

>...The real intent is to criminally prosecute anyone opposed to homosexuality, this is the beginning of thought crimes....

Nope, sorry, completely untrue.

>...Then the Prosecutor charges the Pastor with Conspiracy to Commit Hate Crimes.

Coming soon to a deranged Obama Administation near you....

Again completely WRONG. It is not a "thought crime" bill. Get real, get educated, and get a life.

Posted by: Alex511 | October 8, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Typical liberal buffoonery. Nancy Pelosi is bringing up the murder of a homosexual as reason to pass hate crime legislation? Do we not have laws against murder already? What else does Nancy Pelosi what done besides the current life in prison or death penalty for a murder? Considering Pelosis hand in hand support of NAMBLA in San Fransisco marches I'm afraid to ask. Or does she nievly think a hate crime law would have dissuaded the muder? And is a gay man murdered more a victim or less a victim than a white woman or a child? I would think the same so why the new law?


And when we are asking why... why does this hate crime law cover pedophiles as well? Pelosi just loves those child buggering pedophiles in NAMBLA thats why. I mean 'what the french toast' is going on in Washington? This is disgusting, Nancy Pelosi and anyone else who votes for this bill needs to get voted out of office.


Social engineering causes social conflict and not social harmony, it creates tiers of entitlement that provides MORE protections to one group over another. The answer is to enforces the laws we have EQUALLY under the law, as is stated on the Supreme Court building in large roman marble print. Not 'special' protections for 'special' classes of individuals. And CERTAINLY not for the most reprehensible of our members of society, like Pelosis pet child molesters. Why wasn't this in this article, wapo is losing it to the far left.

Posted by: Homunculus | October 8, 2009 6:31 PM | Report abuse

The may be the only good thing to come out of Congress this year! There's no justifying violence against an American citizen based on bigotry. Doesn't matter what some "holy" preachers will say--there's just no justifying violence cause by fools who can't hold their prejudice in check.

Posted by: jaynashvil | October 8, 2009 6:46 PM | Report abuse

"Again completely WRONG. It is not a "thought crime" bill. Get real, get educated, and get a life.

Posted by: Alex511"

Why don't you take some of your own advice? This is EXACTLY a thought crime bill, and you certainly don't have to be a Republican to see it in this light. There are already existing laws to cover murder and assault. Is it hate speech to be against this ridiculous bill? Good to see our legislators addressing the serious issues facing the nation and the world.

Posted by: garrafa10 | October 8, 2009 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Will Obama demand that we sign off on this violation of the Constitution. How can all citizens be EQUAL IN THE EYES OF THE LAW?

Posted by: TexRancher | October 8, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

How's this: I hate the Democrats and EVERYTHING they stand for.

Posted by: Mainer1776 | October 8, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Ravensfan20008: From my interpretation of the article, the only real issue for the GOP is that the bill failed whilst standing alone, so Pelosi tacked it onto the Defense Budget Bill, knowing that bill would be passed. That seems a little shady to me; it failed the first time around, but she was so determined to have it passed that she squeezed it into an unrelated bill.

That being said, I personally believe that protecting everyone from hate crimes is necessary. I just find Pelosi's manner of forcing the bill a bit like cheating a democratic republic.

Posted by: sarahgirlz | October 8, 2009 7:14 PM | Report abuse

pmendez - why are you so hung up on thinking that attaching more penalty to a crime that was comitted soley because a person hates a minority group is making your thoughts criminal. You are free to be as bigoted as you please. You just can express it and immediately assault a person of that minority group. You aren't planning on doing that are you?

Posted by: MitchInDallas | October 8, 2009 7:19 PM | Report abuse

OK, then convicted felons should get a discount - time off - for love crimes.

Posted by: billwald | October 8, 2009 7:26 PM | Report abuse

So, a person in a minority group is more equal that those in the majority - Hey, makes sense if you're a liberal Democrat. 2010 can't come soon enough....................

Posted by: sandynh | October 8, 2009 7:36 PM | Report abuse

It's funny. They want to memorialize Matthew Shepard with this bill, and yet the people who assaulted him were caught, prosecuted, and punished for their crime. What gap was there in the justice system? None. So why do we need a new federal law that creates new categories that circumvent equal protection? Evidently, one murder isn't the same as another anymore, or else this provision would be completely unnecessary.

And then attaching it to a defense bill conference report? Talk about sneaking one in the back door....

Posted by: blert | October 8, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

blert - one murder has never been the same as another murder - hence multiple classifications of murder (1st degree, capital, etc.) mostly differentiated by the motivation of the crime. This is only an extension of the idea that a hate crime has a much more vile motivation than a murder motivated by a crime of passion moment.

Posted by: MitchInDallas | October 8, 2009 8:07 PM | Report abuse

I think this "Hate Crimes" bill is a bunch of hooey.

Crimes, such as violence and vandalism, should be condemned as such; crimes.

Someone beats another to death, he should be condemed because he beat another to death.

Not only is it needless agravation of a punishment, but it is also institutionalized discrimination.

So if I'm beaten to a pulp, the guy gets off with less time simply because I'm not: gay, black, Jewish, Asian, etc.?

That's just WRONG.

Posted by: kogejoe | October 8, 2009 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Get scared, folks, this is the same gargage, hate crime tribunals shaping up, that is being dismantled for gross abuses in Canada. Go to Mark Steyn's site to educate yourselves.

Lefties are fascists. Stopping debate and opinions they don't like by criminalizing free speech, smearing people as racists, is what they do.

It is so un-American and disgusting.

Posted by: onecent100 | October 8, 2009 8:40 PM | Report abuse

I think this "Hate Crimes" bill is a bunch of hooey.

Crimes, such as violence and vandalism, should be condemned as such; crimes.

Someone beats another to death, he should be condemed because he beat another to death.

Not only is it needless agravation of a punishment, but it is also institutionalized discrimination.

So if I'm beaten to a pulp, the guy gets off with less time simply because I'm not: gay, black, Jewish, Asian, etc.?

That's just WRONG.

Posted by: kogejoe | October 8, 2009 8:40 PM | Report abuse

I think the central problem with this bill is that people are referring to it as a "hate crimes" bill.

It's not.

It's about trying to terrorize groups of innocent people. Some groups get targeted a lot. Not a whole lot of terrorism targets people wearing glasses, or bald people.

Anyone who doesn't believe that gay people get targeted as a group hasn't been reading online comments or the news very long.

We probably have more terms of abuse in the American English language to hurl at innocent gay people than against any other innocent group. Does anyone think that's just a coincidence, and that it's not indicative of how at least some in our society seek to hurt them?

This isn't about thought crimes, no matter how loudly or how often people here utter that phrase. You CANNOT be prosecuted for thinking anything. Period.

Motive, on the other hand, is always relevant when people are prosecuted. If it weren't, there would be no such thing as "premeditated" murder.

So why do we "need" legislation such as this if motive is already covered?

First, I am not overwhelmed by how effective the law will be.

But the intention at least is noble: it's designed to give prosecutors more arrows in their quivers and, most importantly, to allow acts of terror against groups of innocent people to be prosecuted at a federal level. That can be very helpful, particularly in areas where local law enforcement is part of the problem (or don't you think prejudice extends to law enforcement)?

One final point: laws such as these have most definitely been used to protect Christians and others who we don't normally think of as particularly vulnerable to attack. When churches have been burned down, "Hate Crime" legislation has most definitely been used.

There was little if any outcry against these laws when race and religion were covered--- until there was talk of adding innocent gay people to the list.

I wonder what that tells us.

To me, I think that alone means the addition is more than justified.

Posted by: ricklinguist | October 8, 2009 8:48 PM | Report abuse

"Anyone who doesn't believe that gay people get targeted as a group hasn't been reading online comments or the news very long.

We probably have more terms of abuse in the American English language to hurl at innocent gay people than against any other innocent group. Does anyone think that's just a coincidence, and that it's not indicative of how at least some in our society seek to hurt them?

This isn't about thought crimes, no matter how loudly or how often people here utter that phrase. You CANNOT be prosecuted for thinking anything. Period."

...and yet one of your main points is precisely about language. It is EXACTLY about thought control no matter how many sophistic circles you make.

Posted by: garrafa10 | October 8, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse

"Anyone who doesn't believe that gay people get targeted as a group hasn't been reading online comments or the news very long.

We probably have more terms of abuse in the American English language to hurl at innocent gay people than against any other innocent group. Does anyone think that's just a coincidence, and that it's not indicative of how at least some in our society seek to hurt them?

This isn't about thought crimes, no matter how loudly or how often people here utter that phrase. You CANNOT be prosecuted for thinking anything. Period."

...and yet one of your main points is precisely about language. It is EXACTLY about thought control no matter how many sophistic circles you make.

Posted by: garrafa10 | October 8, 2009 9:06 PM | Report abuse

"It's about trying to terrorize groups of innocent people. Some groups get targeted a lot. Not a whole lot of terrorism targets people wearing glasses, or bald people."

No, no.

Anyone is as free as the next guy. You shouldn't have any special "protection" because some people don't like you.

When these "groups," whoever they are, decide to act out and kill somebody, they should be tried for doing that; killing somebody.

You don't like the fact somebody doesn't like you? Tough biscuits.

I'm no Republican. Actually, I kinda liked Ron Paul. I think it's wrong that gays are discriminated against, and that should stop.

But I too see this as just stupid.

A crime, is a crime, is a crime. That's how they should be tried.

If a man shoots somebody, it is discrimination to say that man deserves more time if the victim was gay, but less time if the victim was not.

It is institutionalized discrimination, and I think the bill should be abolished.

What are they going to do if the criminal killed a gay guy out of hate, and the punishment for killing another is capital punishment?

Are they going to kill him twice because his victim was gay?

This bill makes absolutely no sense!

It seems to me the guys rooting for this bill are hateful gays themselves who would like nothing better than to see a het fry.

No special treatment for crimes against gays.

Gays are people too. They get treated like everyone else. That's true "equality."

Posted by: kogejoe | October 8, 2009 9:09 PM | Report abuse

jaxmax wrote, in part:

> [ ... ] And Nutcase Napoliatano has already described
> Christians and those who believe in Bible Prophecy
> as warning signs of potential terrorists. [ ... ]

Warning signs of being delusional and unstable, that's for sure.

You know, the definition of "dead" includes "doesn't get up from the ground and wander around preaching".

Thus, believing that a dead man got up from the grave and preached is delusional... because if he could do that, he was NEVER DEAD. By definition of "dead".

If you said "he survived crucifixion and then revived to continue to preach his exceptionally valuable message" -- and I do believe it's exceptionally valuable -- then you could be thought to be sane. But the definition of "dead" is "stone, stiff, never to rise again, absence of metabolism, rotting in the ground, dead dead dead". No person ever has returned from being actually dead. I defy you to actually prove otherwise.

PS, BTW, be sure to threaten to find and kill me, delusional terrorist.

Posted by: thardman | October 8, 2009 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Why do they keep screwing around on spending? Trillion or bust! LOL

Posted by: walkerbert | October 8, 2009 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Protected species.

Posted by: crumppie | October 8, 2009 9:21 PM | Report abuse

garrafa10 wrote, "and yet one of your main points is precisely about language. It is EXACTLY about thought control no matter how many sophistic circles you make."

With respect, it has nothing to do with "thought control."

Language is one of the ways we communicate. When a gay basher yells out anti-gay epithets as he bashes, that gives us --how shall I put this-- a tiny little clue perhaps as to why he is acting the way he is acting?

If he yelled out "die, Baldy", I would assume that that had something to do with the attack. That's one of the ways we can tell about motives.

But my main point certainly wasn't anything about "thought control". I don't even know what you mean by that. We cannot control people's thoughts with legislation.

And that clearly is neither the intent nor the practical application of these laws which, I might add, have been in force for years now--just not inclusive of categories like sexual orientation.

I was attacked as a teenager.

The guys who attacked me yelled "dirty Jew" and "Christ killer" as they pummeled me.

Are you seriously suggesting that it would be "thought control" to use their words as an indication of motive?

Posted by: ricklinguist | October 8, 2009 9:23 PM | Report abuse

jogejoe wrote, "This bill makes absolutely no sense!"

As I said, it might not be effective as a way to control terrorizing of groups of citizens. But it certainly makes sense. It isn't about "punishing people twice", though, as I am sure you know, punishments frequently include multiple life sentences for multiple counts.

And it isn't about "special protections". It's about ensuring that ALL people get protection.

These kinds of legislation grew out of instances where some types of crimes were not prosecuted--crimes against innocent blacks in the rural south, for example. This was a way to ensure that justice was done when the local forces of justice turned a blind eye to crimes against black people.

And it is certainly the case that gay people are the target of special animus, including by police forces, in many parts of the country.

What you call "special protection" is actually--- just plain old protection for groups who aren't always quite so assured of getting it as you seem to think.

Let me ask you this:

Do you think hatred of innocent gay people is a problem in this country?


Posted by: ricklinguist | October 8, 2009 9:31 PM | Report abuse


People who hate like to rationalize, and in the same way that people who are having sex will cry out at the moment their urge is being satisfied, people who hate will cry out their rationalization of their hateful acts of despicable violence.

It doesn't matter which word is linked to the cry of release that precedes, or follows as rationalization. It's still the declaration of a violent fantasy that has found flesh to make itself real outside of the diseased or mis-instructed mind.

Whatever the name, be it racist, or religious slur -- or even bizarre fantasy right out of bad horror films or Role Playing Games -- this is the same phenomenon as we see in Serial Killers: they've thought about this a lot, they've fantasized the violence, their cry of hatred might as well be sexual, because the only joy greater than sex is murder, as any hardened warrior or serial killer will tell you.

If suppressing the thoughts of a serial killer -- even one who is caught in the act in his very first event and never can do it again -- if that is Thought Control, by g_d let it be done. Call it Thought Control of Murderers to Prevent Murder, and it makes perfect sense to me.

Killing people is seldom right. It is acceptable in a war declared by duly-constituted authority, and that's the only time. Anyone who thinks otherwise seems to be thinking that they alone have the right to decide who shall be their victim of murder.

Anyone arguing against special penalties for exhibiting the mental processes of an emerging serial killer should be viewed with extreme suspicion... they may simply be rationalizing that they have the right to kill people "just because" because they plan to do such a thing.

What other reason is there to argue in favor for allowing people to kill for thrill of hatred?

Posted by: thardman | October 8, 2009 9:36 PM | Report abuse

From an article in the L.A. Times:

"....The legislation -- the first major expansion of the 1968 hate-crimes law -- would expand the law to cover acts of violence motivated by a victim's sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity. Existing federal law defines hate crimes as those motivated by bias based on religion, race, national origin or color.

The measure also would give federal authorities more leeway to aid state and local law enforcement in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. It also makes grants available to state and local communities to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles and to train law enforcement officers in investigating, prosecuting and preventing hate crimes..."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hate-gays9-2009oct09,0,3652953.story?track=rss

Posted by: ricklinguist | October 8, 2009 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Wake up! It's already a crime to assault or kill gay people -- or any other kind of people!

This hate-crime provision is really designed to make certain groups "more equal" than others. AG Eric Holder admitted in Congressional testimony that if a straight, white male were assaulted for being a straight, white male, -- or if a Christian fundamentalist were assaulted for being a Christian fundamentalist -- this law would NOT consider it a hate crime!

Further proof that our political masters want to get rid of the white middle class.

Posted by: pmendez | October 8, 2009 4:49 PM

************

Well pmendez . . .

Usually, it's white Christian males doing all the assaulting on other folks. Maybe that's why legislation is needed.

Posted by: palmtree2001 | October 8, 2009 9:40 PM | Report abuse

The Sacred Writings instuct us not to "hate." Thus, even hating crime is problematic. Maximum punishments are permissable so long as "hate" is not involved.

Posted by: surendranathyogi | October 8, 2009 9:53 PM | Report abuse

The current law has been on the books since 1968. Can someone point to instances where people have been prosecuted for "thought crimes" under the current law?

Posted by: ricklinguist | October 8, 2009 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Thought crimes in America.

Outrageous.

Posted by: thebump | October 8, 2009 11:19 PM | Report abuse

It's about time!

The founding principle of the United States is that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Conservatives have defended their intolerance by adapting a line from George Orwell's satire of Communism:

"ALL ... ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ... ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"

They really should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by: shadocat | October 9, 2009 5:37 AM | Report abuse

Thank GOD!

Posted by: bobbarnes | October 9, 2009 5:41 AM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is a deviant behavior and I don't have to be tolerant or accept it as normal. Don't push your lifestyle on me. I am sick of you liberals that think they are smarter than the rest of us. Liberalism is truly a mental disorder because rational arguments are virtually never forthcoming from your camp. I don't care what you do with your own life, but don't expect everyone to openly accept your way of life. Your rights as an individual are protected, but not necessarily your lifestyle!

Crime is crime regardless if it is perpetuated on a homosexual or not. The punishment should be the same. A gay man/woman, a black man/woman, or any other favored status should not be granted special protection. My children don't fall in this protected class, but I would want the same punishment against the criminal that a homosexual would desire.

Stop shouting that anyone that is against the homosexual agenda is a closet homophobe or racist. It only proves you don't have a tangible argument and have to resort to name calling.

Posted by: liberty1984 | October 9, 2009 11:09 AM | Report abuse

As someone who once held the conservative viewpoint regarding hate crime laws but has since been convinced otherwise, I'll try to explain: when someone is attacked simply because of some trait they have, it is really terrorizing everyone who has that same trait because any of them could just as easily have been the target. It's a crime against an entire class of people, unlike a targeted attack against a particular person due to some prior conflict. That's what makes these situations unique and why additional laws are necessary.

I continue to believe, however, that rather than specifying individual groups piecemeal as current law does, it should be generalized to include crimes committed for ANY characteristic of the victim - be it physical appearance, belief, etc.

Sorry to interject calm reasoned explanation into this madhouse. Please resume flinging insults.

Posted by: BigTunaTim | October 9, 2009 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Very soon now the wailing and knashing of teeth will begin when China decides they are the boss, and America is over. And still we play these stupid games. I seem to have misplaced the arsenal of democracy; anybody seen it lately?

Posted by: cerebral_but | October 9, 2009 11:48 AM | Report abuse

I am amazed at the number of people that do not comprehend the problem with a "hate crime" bill. Let alone being attached to what it is attached to.

A crime is a crime. We already have laws to deal with crime. Start enforcing those crimes. I am reminded of the white kid that was beat down on the bus a few weeks ago by black students yelling racial slurs and the refusal for the state to arrest for a hate crime.

The problem is not the hate, the problem is the double standard. We cannot persecute a cop harder than a citizen for breaking the law. The same logic applies to hate crimes. It also goes against freedom of speech to a degree. Already we allow criminals the right to break into our houses and when we defend ourselves we can be sued. Now, you are advocating the allowance of subjective "hate" to be filtered into the decision of harsher punishment? This is way to subjective. It is reminiscent of the zero tolerance debacle. A kid cannot even bring a plastic knife to school to spread their cheese on their crackers? Or "draw" a gun? this is absurdity to absurd levels. Congress has no business passing hate laws. None. It is out of their mandate Much like 90% of the crap they are dealing with now... and Americans sit back and allow it because it is obviously too much trouble to tell their reps to knock it off.

Posted by: rellenbecker | October 9, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Equal protection under the law, not special status for a few.

Every inch you give as a citizen in the power to the federal government is one more inch you loose in your freedom. Not just with this law but all laws.

This is more of the same. elected officials trying to justify their position.

If all crime of the same class were prosecuted equally then there would be no reason for any hate crime bill.

Not to mention if they actually started punishing criminals instead of rewarding them. A rapist in New York got 6 months (time served) and walked. I just read today a dog killer (one dog) got seven years. Justice? far from it.

Now they are telling the Sheriff in Az. that he cannot arrest illegals?

These are the same people you are allowing to pass laws like this?

Absurdity. This is a STATE issue NOT a federal issue.

Posted by: rellenbecker | October 9, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

This should be a no-brainer.
All hate crimes are a form of terrorism, in that they seek to hurt not only the immediate victim, but also all the other members of that group by denying them the basic rights of freedom, safetly and liberty, and instilling fear in them.
Hate crimes are therefore a special category of crimes above and beyond the immediate crime against the individual: they are also crimes against society as a whole, and a threat to our way of life as a Republic and a Democracy.
The Christian Right is against the Shepard Bill because they believe that their religion teaches them that it is right for them to hurt those groups like gays, whom they believe to be "immoral".
Their opposition to the bill is nothing more nor less than an endorsement of terrorism as a way to acheive their socio-politial aims.

Posted by: jimmywitz | October 9, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if it would be considered a "hate crime" if two homosexuals kidnapped an 11 year old kid, tied him to a bed and molested him for two weeks?

I mean, does it work the other way to?

I ask because I WAS that kid.

Posted by: Thozmaniac | October 9, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

To Thozmaniac:

From your description, the crime against you was horrendous. I certainly hope that the individuals who attacked you were arrested and convicted.

Now that "sexual orientation" has been added to the 1968 crime bill, the crime would be covered if the two men you describe attacked you because you are heterosexual. That's pretty clear. For that matter, it would be covered if you are gay and they attacked you for that reason.

Remember that the goal of the legislation isn't to cover all attacks. Rather, it's to make it easier for law enforcement and prosecutors to pursue crimes that, because unpopular groups are targeted, might not get pursued.

I wish you well in your healing process.

Posted by: ricklinguist | October 9, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Hey, if we make laws protecting every group that's at risk from these violent, crazy, extremist TeaBaggin' Terrorists (formerly known as The Republican Party)...we'd have to write dozens of new laws. Then Michelle Bachmann would want to read them all...and that would take her until 2023. That's just not possible.

Posted by: wilder5121 | October 9, 2009 9:32 PM | Report abuse

"Further proof that our political masters want to get rid of the white middle class"

I know Obama is like, almost black and everything, but our political 'masters' (what, you don't vote?) are WHITE! You are as stupid and cynical as possible.

Posted by: chorpophone | October 10, 2009 3:33 AM | Report abuse

This must not stand because Christians will not be able to tell the homosexual's they are sinning. We want to keep there souls from burning in hell forever by telling them about the redemptive power of Jesus and we can go to prison for this...yet we Christians are willing to sacrafice to give the ultimate act of love to the homosexual!!!!

Posted by: SavedGirl | October 10, 2009 4:11 AM | Report abuse

Dear SavedGirl,

With respect, you can continue to tell gay people that they are "sinning".

And, again, with respect, they can continue to tell you just how mistaken you are.

That's the wonderful thing about the First Amendment: we each get to declare our own set of beliefs to one another.

What we cannot do --and I trust you do not want to do-- is bludgeon innocent gay people to death as you tell them they are "sinning".

Refrain from that, and I really don't think you have anything to worry about.

Posted by: ricklinguist | October 10, 2009 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Economy.dying.military.ignored. incompetent.congress.communist.President.w/ socialist democrats/Reps.plz. Hate crimes-You can't legislate morality, a million thoughts/words do not change minds-force makes them hate u more.r people becoming more violent?yes!sex.perverts.in.schools.u.think.parents.luv.u.more?no! hypocrites/racists? everyone is? What sex.perverts.are.not? America.2.Socialist-what.happens.2.undesirables? train 2 no where. What is New World Order objective? decreasing world population! Sex.Perverts r useful to aggitate the masses, nothing more. Remember this is a political move.UR in a class w/hispanic/latins/poor blacks, used for propaganda=social aggitation. Do u think the rich dem/rep really care? wake up! And thought crimes, get real! U can't legislate morality, impossible. The laws r for after event not before. How does it protect u? it doesn't. Reading/Speaking a Bible passage-hate crime? Who r u going to arrest? God? Moses? Paul? Even n lenin/stalin/mao regimes killing over 100 million people, at the end. people still believed in God. Can't kill God no matter what. Say that not ur obj.=lie. should b law all sex.perverts.hav.2.b.active n psych counseling.

Posted by: roshea1956 | October 10, 2009 10:06 AM | Report abuse

This is typical liberal garbage.Pander to their depraved base.We have equal protection under the law.To elevate one group above another is actually racist,sexist,and discrimination in the highest degree.How is there more hate involved in a gay cross dresser that get attacked than one that is not a gay cross dresser.Come on it is pure foolishness. I got picked on in school,my parents and grand parents got picked on in school.I didn't want to pass a hate bill for "people with overbites" you people are really rich!!You say you want equal-no you only want "special" !!Our government taking up time for this garbage!!Well you can be sure these people won't have their jobs for long!!Does the government passing a law really make you feel better,wow you are putting your faith in the wrong place!!

Posted by: dumbroker | October 10, 2009 8:11 PM | Report abuse

dumbroker wrote, "How is there more hate involved in a gay cross dresser that get attacked than one that is not a gay cross dresser."

With respect, I don't think you understand what this legislation is for or how it works.

It's not about the victims. It's about law enforcement and prosecution.

It's to make it easier for law enforcement and prosecutors to pursue crimes that, because unpopular groups are targeted, might otherwise not get pursued.

That's how the legislation began way back in 1968, and it has never been used to "elevate one group above another."

Rather, it's about trying to ensure that all crimes get prosecuted--in this case, those that routinely got ignored.

Posted by: ricklinguist | October 11, 2009 10:34 AM | Report abuse

I am continually amazed at the "reasoning" that many people who support this kind of legislation use. Those who want a crimes against a particular group to carry much heavier penalties than the exact same crime against someone who belongs to a different classification, that they deem not worthy of protection, believe that not everyone deserves the same level of protection under the law.

Those who have posted statements about hate crime really being a thought crime are accurate in their assesment. If a homosexual person is beaten and robbed for his money would/should that be prosecuted as a hate crime? If the attacker was also a homosexual, would that be a hate crime?

The very definition of the hate crime is solely based on determining the thoughts of perpetrator. MitchinDallas is having a difficult time understanding the dangers and hypocrisy of his position. Also, MitchInDallas is unaware of the prosecutable "hate" speach laws in France. Google Bridgette Bardot on trial for racial hatred for stating Muslims were ruining France.

How about a person who targets only redheaded men to beat with a pipe? The ONLY reason his victums are attacked is because they are part of certain subset of society. Should that criminal get off with a lessor sentence because he didn't target a protected class of citizen? I don't beleive he should.

Those who support hate crime legislation believe that victim of the beating is not entitled to the same level of proction as another group would be.

ALL people, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc should be entitled to the same level of protection by the law.

Special treatment under the law for special groups should be not be tolerated by anyone.

I am against any discriminatory legislation (ie Hate Crimes).

EVERYONE is entitled to the upmost protection of their life, liberty and property.


Posted by: Fins1 | October 11, 2009 6:17 PM | Report abuse

This is sick. while our leaders rob us blind, people spend their time debating whether deviants should recieve special protection. yes I called you deviants because you are and nothing changes that one simple fact. this is just another worthless price of garbage legislation to advert your eyes off of the real issues. hey here's a brain fart, why not pass a law that Child abuse is a hate crime. That's more of an issue that needs addressing. If a child makes it to adulthood without being molested then that child is a rarety. But does anyone care about that? Nope, the "real concern" is protecting perverts who want to flaunt their repulsive lifestyle in our faces and force us to hold the puke in our mouths so we don't hurt their little feelings. Gag me.

Posted by: erin12345 | October 12, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

erin12345 wrote, "...But does anyone care about that? Nope, the "real concern" is protecting perverts who want to flaunt their repulsive lifestyle in our faces..."

October 12, 2009, 6:11 pm
Officials Condemn Beating of Gay Man in Queens

...The victim, Jack Price, 49, had left a deli after buying cigarettes in College Point, Queens, early Friday morning when he received a number of antigay comments and was attacked. He is in fair condition, according to a hospital spokeswoman, and police said he is undergoing treatment for a fractured jaw, rib fractures and a lacerated spleen.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/officials-condemn-beating-of-gay-man-in-queens/?hp

Posted by: ricklinguist | October 12, 2009 9:59 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company